Posted on 11/05/2003 12:44:11 PM PST by Maceman
With no viable competitors, Bush's popularity holds firm in runup to 2004 elections
So, just how much trouble is George Bush in over the Iraq situation?
Not as much as we've been led to believe, it appears. Many opponents of the U.S. President have been eager to suggest his chances of re-election fade with each setback in Baghdad. But if Americans are rising up against Mr. Bush, preparing to discard him on the heap of one-term presidents, it isn't evident from the polls.
It can't be reassuring for Mr. Bush to be entering the final 12-month slog to the vote with Iraqi insurgents using U.S. troops for target practice. It doesn't help that no one can pin down who is behind the shooting and bombing. If you don't know who the enemy is, how do you defeat him? As an example of how uncertain Americans are about the identity of their enemy, Wolf Blitzer recently ran one of those unscientific CNN polls, this one asking viewers who they thought was behind the attacks in Baghdad and its environs: Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, anti-U.S. extremists or "other." Other won by a landslide.
Wolf also showed a bunch of other surveys, not all by CNN, relating to Mr. Bush's popularity and the ratings of the nine Democrats vying for the presidential nomination at the fast-approaching caucuses in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire. It wasn't bad news for the President.
In Iowa, according to Wolf, Howard Dean is in a dead heat with Richard Gephardt. Mr. Dean has been eagerly embraced by the U.S. media machine, which is desperate to find someone who can give a semblance of drama to the endless race.
Treated as a sort of Jimmy Stewart figure -- the plain-speaking country doctor from Vermont who's going to take a broom to all those professional politicians in Washington -- he's been featured on every magazine cover, accompanied by awestruck reports recounting his amazing discovery that you can raise lots of money over the Internet. Scam artists from Nigeria have known this for years, and no one wants to rush them into the White House, but never mind. Mr. Dean is the candidate du jour, and will stay that way until he stumbles.
Yet despite all the attention, and a year of hard campaigning, the best Mr. Dean has managed in Iowa is a stalemate with Mr. Gephardt, a worthy but wooden performer who makes Al Gore look sexy and who has tried on several earlier occasions to convince Americans they might like to make him their president. Or at least their presidential candidate.
In New Hampshire Mr. Dean has a solid lead over John Kerry, who doesn't have much of a platform beyond the conviction that, having been a senator long enough, it's time he took a shot at the top job. Both he and Mr. Dean are favourite sons in New Hampshire -- each representing a nearby state -- but Mr. Dean seems to be the most favourite because he has a clearer idea of why he wants to be president. He was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, and said so; Mr. Kerry supported the war, but now wishes he hadn't and is trying to wriggle out of having done so.
The most intriguing of Wolf's polls was one -- actually commissioned by ABC and The Washington Post -- that showed Mr. Bush, pitted against an unidentified Democrat, would attract 48% support to the no-name candidate's 47%. In other words, asked if they would vote for the President, or for an idealized Democrat with no faults and all the attributes they could dream up, half the respondents chose Mr. Bush. An earlier Post/ABC poll showed Mr. Bush's job-approval rating at 53%, higher than Bill Clinton at this stage of his first term. A similar USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll put his approval at 58%, topping both Mr. Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
None of this is conclusive, of course. Americans can change their minds, and were probably changing them even as Wolf got off the air. A few weeks back, Democrats thought General Wesley Clark was the answer to their prayers, largely because he wasn't any of the other candidates. But after getting to know him better, they liked him less, and it remains to be seen how much they'll like Mr. Dean as they learn more about him.
So how can this be? How can Mr. Bush be holding his own when so much of the punditocracy insists he should be knock-kneed with fear? The answer isn't clear-cut, but here are a few possibilities:
One is that Americans are more sophisticated than critics give them credit for, and accept that part of the cost of policing the world is lives will be lost. In Canada, where we prefer to starve the military while nesting cozily in an economy protected by U.S. demand, this is considered unfathomable. But maybe that's our problem, not theirs.
Another possibility is that Americans accept the war for what it is. While Canada, France and others fixate on the fact there weren't any nukes after all, Americans long ago concluded that ending the terrorism and tyranny of Saddam Hussein was justification enough, no matter what weapons he used.
A third alternative is the absence of an attractive alternative. Mr. Dean has spelled out what he's against, but not what he's for. What would he do in Iraq: bring home all the troops and leave Iraqis to the chaos? Hand power to the first Iraqi administration that can manoeuvre itself into position, no matter how corrupt or lacking in credibility? Or shift it all to the UN for another decade of pointless jawboning?
Mr. Bush benefits from knowing his own mind and sticking to his plans. His critics don't know what they want, just what they don't like. U.S. voters, admirably, seem to recognize which of the two is better.
I would've picked the DNC.
LOL! I never thought of it that way. "Howard Dean--Brought to You by QVC!".
Those who think differently, must never have heard that Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton won the presidency during economic downturns. None of them were particuarly good, but they still won. People who lost their jobs, had their pay cut, or worry about it, vote their pocketbooks.
Bush has until next summer to get our jobs and factories back, and to balance our federal budget and balance of trade by then. If he does it, then he probably will get re-elected, if he doesnt, then he probably wont.
Oh spare me the "slog" quotes.
I live in Maine and blaming Bush for what is happening to factories here in Maine is like blaming the FAA for road conditions.
The Dems in Maine have spent and taxed heavy industry here into oblivion and blamed the lack of replacement work on the National government.....
Very few industries move here after doing basic research.
Jobs and factories are two different subjects. Jobs are comming back, factories the unions have killed and sent over seas.
Not sure about that. Bush still has a lot of power to nullify unfair trade agreements like NAFTA, and to end the H1-B and L-1 visas, as well as tax companies that outsource, give tax breaks to companies that open factories that employ americans, shift away from depending on a personal income and instead finance our government with tarrifs like we used to.
What you seem to forget, is that bush is the leader of the republican party, who control both housed of congress. Just about anything that bush wanted to do to improve the jobs and economy, would sail thru congress , but they arent even proposing to do anything, much like Hoover ignored the economy.
Not sure about that. Bush still has a lot of power to nullify unfair trade agreements like NAFTA, and to end the H1-B and L-1 visas, as well as tax companies that outsource, give tax breaks to companies that open factories that employ americans, shift away from depending on a personal income and instead finance our government with tarrifs like we used to.
What you seem to forget, is that bush is the leader of the republican party, who control both housed of congress. Just about anything that bush wanted to do to improve the jobs and economy, would sail thru congress , but they arent even proposing to do anything, much like Hoover ignored the economy.
Anyways, it doesnt matter even if it wasnt his fault, he will still get kicked out of office if the jobs and factories are not back by next summer.
I dont think it was Nixons fault that we had the recession of 1958-1960 and the people voted for Kennedy, I dont think it was Fords fault that we had a recession in 1974-1976 and put Carter in the white house, and it wasnt entirely bush's fault for the recession of the early 1990's that put Clinton in the white house.
Doesnt matter. If you are president and you oversee good times change to bad times, the people will vote you out to get a change, any change.
What planet do you live on??
I dont know about that, companies are still closing and movign overseas and getting rid of american citizen workers. In the past week alone, cross pens, Tyco, B&W, EDS, Compuware, sBC, Trane, Ford, New Technology Network-BCA Corp, airport screeners, Duke Energy, Carrier, SAbre, JP Morgan, etc. announced the ending of tens of thousands of american jobs. We still are having new unemployement claims of nearly 400,000 after 3 years of this with no end in sight. There are so many people unemployed, or underemployed, that our income tax receipts are half a trillion below what we are spending.
Dont say the jobs are comming back until EDS and others announce the hiring of tens of thousands of american citizens, until we hear day after day of more and more new factories opening up here in america, etc.
Just what is the meaning of controlling the white house and the congress if you are not going to do anything with that power?
Not only could bush create jobs, but he could get rid of a lot of useless government agencies, end a lot of needless government regulations, end/repeal a lot of old gun control laws, etc.
Why do you think some people voted for those republicans anyways? What is the point in voting republican if the republicans continue to make governemnt bigger, and dont end the bad programs that the democrats passed when they were in power.
LOL! You don't know how funny that statement is about EDS. EDS will hire more workers when they start doing a good job delivering on their contracts and pleasing their customers!
You have freepmail
Unions have been here for a hundred years.
If it was unions that was causing the problem with losses of jobs, and with factory closings in america, it would have happened a long time ago.
The big job losses and net factory closings correlate to reductions in tarrifs over the past couple of decades, and to unfair trade agreements with other countries in the past several years.
It is not a coincidence that companies that have been here for a hundred years, who have been unionized for over 50 years, are now closing, and no new factories are being built. We had unions in the 1940's and 1950's, and there were plenty of new factories being built all the time in america.
You have Freepmail
Electronic Data Systems Corp., the world's second-largest seller of computer services, will eliminate an additional 2,500 jobs after the company had a third- quarter loss as sales declined 2 percent. The net loss was $600,000, or less than a penny per share, compared with a profit of $86 million, or 18 cents, a year earlier, the Plano, Texas-based company said. Revenue fell to $5.24 billion from $5.33 billion. The latest job cuts would be about 1.9 percent of the company's 135,000 staff at the end of September. They are in addition to 2,700 firings announced in June by Chief Executive Michael Jordan. He also has announced plans to sell businesses to raise cash and reduce debt.
On that I agree with you totally!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.